- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 09:00:32 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 03:51, Brian McBride wrote: > > At 23:46 31/10/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: > > >Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be? In particular, is > >this satisfiable? : > > > >7. > >rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx . > > > >? Or can I rule that out? If not, our claim that lists are bounded seems > >rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the first place..... > > Here I want to float an idea I have mentioned offline to Pat. > > Would it make sense to restrict the structure of collections in the > *abtract syntax*. Don't worry Dave, I don't think it affects the XML > syntax - it can only produce well formed lists already. ??? I don't see how you come to that conclusion. It seems obviously false; witness the following counterexample: <rdf:Description about="#aBadList> <rdf:first>1</rdf:first> <rdf:first>2</rdf:first> </rdf:Description> If the list has only one first, then "1" and "2" denote the same thing; but they don't; they denote distinct things. > We write the > abstract syntax so that lists must be syntactically well formed. Anything > else is not well formed RDF. > > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 10:01:13 UTC